Muslim Gender Equality

[R. Richard]

In Pakistan, a woman, Mukhtar Mai, was gang raped after a tribal council in her eastern Punjab village ordered the rape as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher caste. There was never, at any time, even a charge that Mujhtar Mai did any wrong. Comment?


Pakistan moves to amend rape laws

ISLAMABAD, Pakistan - Pakistan's Senate approved a controversial bill to help rape victims, despite vehement protests by hard-line Muslim lawmakers who claim the legislation violates Islamic law.

The bill is now set to go before President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who is expected to sign it.

The Pakistani leader has been a strong supporter of changing contentious sections of the 1979 Hudood Ordinance, or rape law, as a way of softening the country's hard-line Islamic image and appeasing moderates and human rights groups opposed to the statutes.

Activists have long condemned the laws for punishing — instead of protecting — rape victims while providing legal safeguards for their attackers. But conservatives and opposition supporters have rallied to keep the old laws, which were introduced by the late President Gen. Zia ul-Haq to make Pakistani laws more Islamic.

The government-controlled Senate passed the amendments Thursday in an evening voice vote, Information Minister Mohammed Ali Durrani said. The legislation, dubbed the "Protection of Women Bill," came a week after it cleared the lower house of parliament.

The new law would drop the death penalty for people found to have had sex outside of marriage, and lets judges choose whether to try a rape case in a criminal court or an Islamic court. Under the Hudood Ordinance, rape victims could only raise a case in the Islamic court, which requires testimony from four witnesses to the crime.
From Wikipedia: A woman alleging rape is required to provide four adult male witnesses of "the act of penetration", and if the accused man is Muslim, the witnesses must be Muslims themselves. Failure to prove rape places the woman at risk of prosecution for adultery, which does not require such strong evidence.

Under the new law, consensual non-marital sex remains a crime, but it is punishable by five years in prison or a 10,000 rupees (US$165, euro129) fine instead of death.

International and local calls for change intensified after the 2002 gang rape of a woman, Mukhtar Mai, who was assaulted after a tribal council in her eastern Punjab village ordered the rape as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher caste.

Ahead of Thursday's vote, Senator Khurshid Ahmed, leader of the opposition religious coalition, condemned the bill as "an attempt to promote an alien culture and secularism in Pakistan."

Discussion on the new bill broke down in September after the government failed to win support from opposition Islamic groups, particularly for abolishing the need for four witnesses to a rape, a crime that often has no bystanders.

In a compromise, the government proposed the clause allowing a judge to try cases in either a criminal court or in an Islamic court.

The new bill also removes the right of police to detain people suspected of having sex outside of marriage, instead requiring an individual to make a formal accusation directly to a court and not the police.

 

[erise]

In Pakistan, a woman, Mukhtar Mai, was gang raped after a tribal council in her eastern Punjab village ordered the rape as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher caste. There was never, at any time, even a charge that Mujhtar Mai did any wrong. Comment?

I'm not sure what you want us to comment on. The rape of Mukhtar Mai or the new laws in Pakistan?

I remember that this case caused a lot of publicity. I also remember that what they did was illegal and reprehensible even by hudood standards, instantly condemned by the region's imam who is considerd quite conservative, and that the rapists were sentenced to death. Some of the capital sentences were later repealed and held up in jucidial hoops, and I'm not sure how that eventually ended. Does anyone know?

But this tragic and sickening story has very little to do with muslim gender equality, and everything to do with tribal Pakistani malfunction.

Pakistan is moving in the right direction. Baby steps, but still. There are equally strong forces for radical change, both international pressure and domestic reformists, and almost medieval conservatism within the clergy and thr rural tribe culture. Musharraf has one of the most tricky jobs in the world in finding compromises that allows the country to move in any direction at all.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Comment? It's barbaric.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Ditto. It's horrific. In a utopia, these things would not occur. Positive change away from encouraging these sorts of crimes is always applauded and neccessary. The people who committed the crimes despite whatever rationale they have come up with will go to a very bad place for all eternity and no pleading false morality will get them out of it.

Misogyny and the crimes it inflicts on women must be fought everywhere. Crimes of rape especially have no place in any moral lexicon and the faster all cultures arive at that realization, the better.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

I'm not sure what you want us to comment on. The rape of Mukhtar Mai or the new laws in Pakistan?

I remember that this case caused a lot of publicity. I also remember that what they did was illegal and reprehensible even by hudood standards, instantly condemned by the region's imam who is considerd quite conservative, and that the rapists were sentenced to death. Some of the capital sentences were later repealed and held up in jucidial hoops, and I'm not sure how that eventually ended. Does anyone know?

But this tragic and sickening story has very little to do with muslim gender equality, and everything to do with tribal Pakistani malfunction.

Pakistan is moving in the right direction. Baby steps, but still. There are equally strong forces for radical change, both international pressure and domestic reformists, and almost medieval conservatism within the clergy and thr rural tribe culture. Musharraf has one of the most tricky jobs in the world in finding compromises that allows the country to move in any direction at all.

I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam, despite the attempts of some on this forum to deny it or to make it appear to be minimal. This may be an extreme example, even under hudood standards, which are pretty extreme themselves, but it is all based on Islamic law.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Ditto. It's horrific. In a utopia, these things would not occur.

Oh, I don't think one has to move that far down the road to enlightenment to find cultures, societies, polities and civilizations where such things are not protected under the color of law or custom. Indeed, Utopia is not an option, but living without barbarism is.

 

[cloudy]

I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam, despite the attempts of some on this forum to deny it or to make it appear to be minimal. This may be an extreme example, even under hudood standards, which are pretty extreme themselves, but it is all based on Islamic law.

From what I can tell, it had diddley-squat to do with religion, and everything to do with their tribal culture.

But then, there are those on this forum that will jump on any bandwagon, no matter what the truth. Even if a story has fuck-all to do with Islam, the fact that the people that commited an outrage just happened to be muslim means that the entire religion is baaaaaaaad. Bonus: they're brown, too. Yay! More to hate!

It's such fun to be non-white, and non-christian around here sometimes. If I leave lit, it will be for the intolerance I've seen here lately for those that are somehow "other."

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Oh, I don't think one has to move that far down the road to enlightenment to find cultures, societies, polities and civilizations where such things are not protected under the color of law or custom. Indeed, Utopia is not an option, but living without barbarism is.

True, especially on the extremes. But crimes of rape or even crimes of rape where the rapists feel justified still occurs in civilized countries. Towards the elimination of all horrible crimes and the misogynies, bigotries, and plain everday hatreds and psychoses that lead to these crimes and horrors, we have much work to do in every country.

This marks close to the bottom of the pit but we all have climbing to do to get up to Utopia-land or even a land where gang rapes of innocents do not occur.

Even a low goal like that one must admit is hard to fulfill without fail. The best we can do is discourage it with all our hearts in every country it occurs in and hope for positive change in all countries and fight for it as well.

No woman should be held under the boot of a male-dominated culture, nor should she suffer for the flaws of its men.

Pakistan has a ways to go before it treats women even as poorly as America does. But every small step towards positive change is a good thing and every step which is internally decided is more likely to promote lasting change.

We should all still push nonetheless. The faster that everyone gets over it and realizes women are people, equal people, with equal potential, the better we'll all be.

 

[erise]

From what I can tell, it had diddley-squat to do with religion, and everything to do with their tribal culture.

Tnank you, exactly.

The same kind of thing, honor-related killings, rapes and trade-offs with women's lives into forced marriages have happened in the past in many other similar isolated and heavily partiarchal tribal cultures. I know at least two cases that involved Christian kurds. But oh yeah, it's Islams fault.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

From what I can tell, it had diddley-squat to do with religion, and everything to do with their tribal culture.

But then, there are those on this forum that will jump on any bandwagon, no matter what the truth. Even if a story has fuck-all to do with Islam, the fact that the people that commited an outrage just happened to be muslim means that the entire religion is baaaaaaaad. Bonus: they're brown, too. Yay! More to hate!

It's such fun to be non-white, and non-christian around here sometimes. If I leave lit, it will be for the intolerance I've seen here lately for those that are somehow "other."

Actually, some Christian fundamentalist churches are almost as bad. The LDS church, in particular, considers women to be servants of their men and baby producers. Fortunately, the laws in most nations that are mainly Christian, prohibit excesses like the one described on this thread.

 

[erise]

I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam.

For the record: I don't feel inequal at all.

Yes, I'm a muslim, living in a modern, moderate, but all Islam community. Hudood and sharia are no more a part of our law and life than the Spanish inquisition is of yours.

But yes, Pakistan and other naitons with active Sharia do suck. Let's hope they grow out of it. Sooner rather than later.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby: Oh, I don't think one has to move that far down the road to enlightenment to find cultures, societies, polities and civilizations where such things are not protected under the color of law or custom. Indeed, Utopia is not an option, but living without barbarism is.

True, especially on the extremes. But crimes of rape or even crimes of rape where the rapists feel justified still occurs in civilized countries.

You changed the subject. Of course rape still happens in civilized societies, and the rapists probably feel themselves "justified" in some way. ("She was askin' for it . . ." ) But note that I was talking about rapists being protected under the color of law or custom. That is the issue under discussion here.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Originally Posted by Roxanne Appleby: Oh, I don't think one has to move that far down the road to enlightenment to find cultures, societies, polities and civilizations where such things are not protected under the color of law or custom. Indeed, Utopia is not an option, but living without barbarism is.

You changed the subject. Of course rape still happens in civilized societies, and the rapists probably feel themselves "justified" in some way. ("She was askin' for it . . ." ) But note that I was talking about rapists being protected under the color of law or custom. That is the issue under discussion here.

Fair enough. How about the fact that rape victims are the ones whose characters are put on trial in any rape trial in America, are the ones on trial in general and often have the burden of proof despite the greater availability of DNA testing. Let us consider that many police departments fail to do DNA testing or the costs of ordering it are placed on the victim if the DNA testing place has an opening in their scheadules even if the first thing they do after the horrible incident is stagger into a police station. Many stations use coercion or attack interviews to dissuade a rape victim from getting out their story.

On top of all that. Dressing in a slutty manner, having been rumored to be slutty, or to otherwise be seen as sexually liberal have in multiple high profile rape cases as well as inumerable lower profile cases to be a strong enough reason for a rapist to be considered not guilty. The end of all high profiled rape cases pretty much centered on the debate: "Is the woman a slut" rather than "Was she forced into nonconsensual sex".

Movements abound among anti-feminists who want date-rape distanced from rape and spousal rape has rare appearances among those with courage. These courageous people often lose their cases because they are married to the offender and especially if no battery was involved.




Given these and many more stories, rapists are indeed protected by culture and law in America.

Is it to the degree of Pakistan or extreme cultures in Africa? Of course not.

Is it still occuring? Yes.

So under the issue we're apparently discussing, that's my two cents clarification.

 

[cloudy]

For the record: I don't feel inequal at all.

Yes, I'm a muslim, living in a modern, moderate, but all Islam community. Hudood and sharia are no more a part of our law and life than the Spanish inquisition is of yours.

But yes, Pakistan and other naitons with active Sharia do suck. Let's hope they grow out of it. Sooner rather than later.

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Honesly, people....I've seen enough muslim bashing on this forum lately that it literally makes me sick to my stomach.

There is absolutely no tolerance here. Those of you jumping on the hate bandwagon ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. I'm ashamed for you.

 

[SweetPrettyAss]

Fair enough. How about the fact that rape victims are the ones whose characters are put on trial in any rape trial in America, are the ones on trial in general and often have the burden of proof despite the greater availability of DNA testing. Let us consider that many police departments fail to do DNA testing or the costs of ordering it are placed on the victim if the DNA testing place has an opening in their scheadules even if the first thing they do after the horrible incident is stagger into a police station. Many stations use coercion or attack interviews to dissuade a rape victim from getting out their story.

On top of all that. Dressing in a slutty manner, having been rumored to be slutty, or to otherwise be seen as sexually liberal have in multiple high profile rape cases as well as inumerable lower profile cases to be a strong enough reason for a rapist to be considered not guilty. The end of all high profiled rape cases pretty much centered on the debate: "Is the woman a slut" rather than "Was she forced into nonconsensual sex".

Movements abound among anti-feminists who want date-rape distanced from rape and spousal rape has rare appearances among those with courage. These courageous people often lose their cases because they are married to the offender and especially if no battery was involved.




Given these and many more stories, rapists are indeed protected by culture and law in America.

Is it to the degree of Pakistan or extreme cultures in Africa? Of course not.

Is it still occuring? Yes.

So under the issue we're apparently discussing, that's my two cents clarification.

The rights of defendants, those who are accused of committing a crime, are protected in the courts. It is up to the prosecution to prove that a crime, such as rape did occur. Unless there is an eye witness, this usually involves things like injuries to the person claiming rape or torn clothng or obvious forced entry into the alleged victim's residence or other evidence of violence. If none of these are present, and the defense is claiming the sex was consensual, they will try to prove that the other party often had consensual casual sex. By doing so, they can cause the jury to doubt that rape occurred and acquit the defendant. Like it or not, ths is a valid defense.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Fair enough. How about the fact that rape victims are the ones whose characters are put on trial in any rape trial in America, are the ones on trial in general and often have the burden of proof despite the greater availability of DNA testing. Let us consider that many police departments fail to do DNA testing or the costs of ordering it are placed on the victim if the DNA testing place has an opening in their scheadules even if the first thing they do after the horrible incident is stagger into a police station. Many stations use coercion or attack interviews to dissuade a rape victim from getting out their story.

On top of all that. Dressing in a slutty manner, having been rumored to be slutty, or to otherwise be seen as sexually liberal have in multiple high profile rape cases as well as inumerable lower profile cases to be a strong enough reason for a rapist to be considered not guilty. The end of all high profiled rape cases pretty much centered on the debate: "Is the woman a slut" rather than "Was she forced into nonconsensual sex".

Movements abound among anti-feminists who want date-rape distanced from rape and spousal rape has rare appearances among those with courage. These courageous people often lose their cases because they are married to the offender and especially if no battery was involved.


Given these and many more stories, rapists are indeed protected by culture and law in America.

Is it to the degree of Pakistan or extreme cultures in Africa? Of course not.

Is it still occuring? Yes.

So under the issue we're apparently discussing, that's my two cents clarification.

Oh my. First off, a lot of what you've described are practices that have been prohibited by statute, legal precedent, and court rules. Some of what you say is absurd: "Many police stations use coercion or attack interviews to dissuade a rape victim from getting out their story." It's too bad there are are no AHers who are in law enforcement - they would have a field day with that one.

Second, you say "the burden of proof is on the woman" who accuses rape. Well, duh - suspects are innocent until proven guilty under our system of justice, and the prosecution must prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt.

Essentially, what you have described are the balances that a just system of justice must make between the rights of the accused and the rights of the victim. This applies to any crime, not just rape.

Finally, date rape and marital rape are very difficult issues for even the finest, fairest, wisest justice system. It's pure "he said, she said," and almost impossible to know where the truth lies.

To cite all these factors as evidence that "rapists are indeed protected by culture and law in America" is - well, I don't want to be insulting. I'll just say, perhaps you should give a bit more thought to these issues.

 

[CharleyH]

In Pakistan, a woman, Mukhtar Mai, was gang raped after a tribal council in her eastern Punjab village ordered the rape as punishment for her 13-year-old brother's alleged affair with a woman of a higher caste. There was never, at any time, even a charge that Mujhtar Mai did any wrong. Comment?


Pakistan moves to amend rape laws
rape victims could only raise a case in the Islamic court, which requires testimony from four witnesses to the crime.

So how exactly is this different than North Americain culture?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Forgive them, for they know not what they do.

Honesly, people....I've seen enough muslim bashing on this forum lately that it literally makes me sick to my stomach.

There is absolutely no tolerance here. Those of you jumping on the hate bandwagon ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. I'm ashamed for you.

Excuse me, Miss: Aside from you and Luc, only one sentence in this entire thread has referred to the religion of Islam. (Erise's posts are in a separate category, because she has mostly been providing useful first hand information.) SweetPretty said, "I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam, despite the attempts of some on this forum to deny it or to make it appear to be minimal."

I have not said a word about any religion, nor did Richard, nor Sweet, with the exception of that one sentence, and that made a legitimate point. If you think it is in error then rebut it, but what's with with the "forgive them they know not?" stuff? Is it your position that laws passed by an important nation of 165 million (and a nuclear power) are beyond the pale of discussion? Who's being crucified here, oh Lord?

 

[CharleyH]

Excuse me, Miss: Aside from you and Luc, only one sentence in this entire thread has referred to the religion of Islam. (Erise's posts are in a separate category, because she has mostly been providing useful first hand information.) SweetPretty said, "I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam, despite the attempts of some on this forum to deny it or to make it appear to be minimal."

I have not said a word about any religion, nor did Richard, nor Sweet, with the exception of that one sentence, and that made a legitimate point. If you think it is in error then rebut it, but what's with with the "forgive them they know not?" stuff? Is it your position that laws passed by an important nation of 165 million (and a nuclear power) are beyond the pale of discussion? Who's being crucified here, oh Lord?

I think you are all a bunch of idiots who did not get the point about the concept of sex or even authorship on the AH, but hell, you want to talk - so be it.

 

[erise]

nor did Richard

Just in the thread title. Ho hum, never mind.


CharlieH, want a hug?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Just in the thread title. Ho hum, never mind.


CharlieH, want a hug?

Correction noted, thank you. Yes, that is regretful.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Excuse me, Miss: Aside from you and Luc, only one sentence in this entire thread has referred to the religion of Islam. (Erise's posts are in a separate category, because she has mostly been providing useful first hand information.) SweetPretty said, "I would say the intent is to point out the gender inequality inherent in Islam, despite the attempts of some on this forum to deny it or to make it appear to be minimal."

I have not said a word about any religion, nor did Richard, nor Sweet, with the exception of that one sentence, and that made a legitimate point. If you think it is in error then rebut it, but what's with with the "forgive them they know not?" stuff? Is it your position that laws passed by an important nation of 165 million (and a nuclear power) are beyond the pale of discussion? Who's being crucified here, oh Lord?

I mentioned Islam?

This would explain a few things.

What did I say about Islam on this thread? I'm rather curious to know.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I think you are all a bunch of idiots who did not get the point about the concept of sex or even authorship on the AH, but hell, you want to talk - so be it.

That is uncalled for. Are you saying there should not be political threads? Or perhaps just no political threads that raise issues you would rather not talk about, or that make you uncomfortable, since you seem perfectly willing to participate in ones that are more to your liking.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I mentioned Islam?

This would explain a few things.

What did I say about Islam on this thread? I'm rather curious to know.

Second correction noted. My apologies. This does not take away from my point. (The thread title does.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Erise, I am sorry that some of these issues are discussed in a manner that may be insensitive to you, and apologize for any insensitivity that I may have shown in this or other threads on the issue. I am very glad that you are here, and your tolerant, reasonable and good humored remarks are heartening. I hope that you will stick around expecially in threads like this, and help us and me clean up our act on these very important issues.

I do have a bit of a quibble with you, though. You compared the extreme intolerance and misogyny that are the hallmark of hudood and sharia as "no more a part of our law and life than the Spanish inquisition is of yours." Unfortunately, that is not the case. The Spanish Inquisition is history; nowhere in the nations that are predominantly Christian is their anything remotely comparable to sharia and hudood in law. In contrast, hundreds of millions of Islamic women are living under versions of these laws at this very moment.

Also, I take it that you contend that these these things are no more intrinsic to Islam than the strictures of Leviticus are to contemporary Christianity. Your own experience gives weight to that assertion. But are you ready to let Islam off the hook completely for these things?

Thank you again for being a member of our community. I understand you have been around for a while, and I am one of those "newbies." Well, howdy, "oldie but goodie," I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.